Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-38 Committee on May 30th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much, Mr. Toone.

We now move on to Mr. Kamp for five minutes, please.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us here today.

Dr. Fisher, thank you for coming all the way from beautiful downtown Agassiz. That area used to be in the riding I represent. I know it's a beautiful area. I know as well that you are a research scientist emeritus with Agriculture Canada. My only disappointment is that you are still a Saskatchewan Roughriders supporter, which is a disappointment to me.

We got a lesson from Mr. Nicholls on physical geography, hydrology, and so on. You may want to respond to that. I know he didn't give you an opportunity.

In your presentation, if I heard it correctly, you said that 80% of the drainage costs of the district of Kent are due to direct and indirect costs—getting approvals, permits, and so on through the authorization process with DFO. I just wonder if you could give us a bit more information about how that process worked, and the frustrations, if you had any, in that process.

[Lorne Fisher]

In terms of the costs involved, we have had to hire a staff member specifically to get grants approved. When I became mayor in 2005, we weren't getting any drainage done. We weren't getting any gravel removed from the Fraser River because the municipality did not have the technical people to write the necessary grants to get it done, or the time to do it. We had to add staff members.

As I mentioned earlier, the fact is the soils have become less productive because we were not doing our job, and it is part of a municipality's job to ensure that the agricultural land is productive because it's part of the old ARDSA agreement from some time ago. All these things were costing money. The actual digging or cleaning of the ditches costs a lot more because it has to be done under the supervision of monitors, if there's any chance of disruption of fish habitat. These are the types of things that contribute to it.

I noticed that I wasn't asked about what my theories were for streams versus ditches. Ditches don't have headwaters. Ditches go dry. That's not what really worries the farmers. What worries the farmers more is 30-metre setbacks when they have relatively small, 20-, 30-, or even 10-acre fields. Agricultural land is extremely scarce in the Fraser Valley, which you must be aware of as well. The growing of trees for riparian areas takes up space and also cuts down productivity.

I've had many discussions about this. I certainly think that a well-grassed surface is far more effective in preventing the siltation you mentioned than the growing of trees, which shed more leaves and branches, etc. We could argue that point for a long time.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I raised this question with a previous panel. I read from the habitat policy that DFO presumably follows, written in 1986. It's been applied since then. There's just one line here that reads, “The policy applies to those habitats directly or indirectly supporting those fish stocks or populations that sustain commercial, recreational or Native fishing activities of benefit to Canadians.”

In your experience with DFO, has it appeared to you that they've followed this policy, or was it more indiscriminate, that every water everywhere that might have a fish in it was being protected? Are you in favour of refocusing, as we are in this bill, on these fisheries that matter to Canadians?

[Lorne Fisher]

Yes, that's been the problem. There's been a little variation in how DFO personnel interpret that language. Also, certain consultants interpret that language far more broadly than was initially meant. If these suggested changes can curb that somewhat, it would be appreciated. Right now there are people out there...there are some days in the Fraser Valley where it's all a stream, for one thing—we're all underwater—with the best of drainage.

I think the wording as it stands now has been interpreted much too broadly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Kamp. That ends your time.

My understanding right now is that there's been discussion among the parties. Yesterday the analysts asked me for direction from the committee on the report. We're approaching the end of our witnesses today, and we have two hours slated tomorrow on the notice of meeting to discuss and consider the report we are tasked with sending back by a specific deadline. We have to allow a certain amount of time, not only to draft that report but also to give interpreters and so on enough time, for consideration to report our report back from the subcommittee.

I'm asking right now if we can use the last 10 to 12 minutes of our slated meeting time, which is supposed to end at 10:30, according to our notice of meeting. We've had a fairly thorough round of questioning of the witnesses. I'm looking for direction from the committee as to what we want to do. Should we proceed to some discussions so we can provide the analysts with some consideration and give me some direction on how we're going to proceed tomorrow with the consideration of the draft report?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I agree that time is tight. There is no question it's tight. I'd be happy to stay for five or ten minutes after.

But we have another five minutes. These good folks have a lot of experience and information to share, and we don't have much time left to hear from experts like these. I don't want to abuse their time by not taking advantage of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I don't see consensus, but I'll go around and hear a couple of other comments.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

If we stop now, even if we dismiss the witnesses, we're going to have less than 10 minutes to talk about this. I think Ms. Duncan wanted to speak about these issues. She feels strongly about this. I think we should move to a discussion and wrap up at the time that we concluded we were going to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We will have four days to discuss this section of the bill, and in fairness to the witnesses, I want to make sure we have an evidence-based report. We need a thorough discussion to provide direction on what the report is going to look like.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I'm sensing from you, Ms. Duncan, that you would like to proceed to drafting instructions at this point.

Okay, I don't have consensus on this, so in order to change the notice of meeting, which is supposed to take us to the end of today, I would need a motion that the committee now moves to consideration of the drafting instructions for the analyst. Otherwise, I would have to give the time to Mr. Chisholm, who is next on the list.

Do I have a motion to that effect?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

A motion...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Do you want to start? I need a motion to move to consideration—

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

We had the discussion, and we weren't going to do that.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I move to discuss the report.

That's what we're suggesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Okay.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

We're done with questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

We're not done with questioning; actually we have five minutes.

I sought consensus, Mr. Chisholm. I heard your point, and I respect it. I believe what I heard from two of the other parties at the table is that they would like to change the agenda.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

It's by unanimous consent only.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

No, I don't need unanimous consent. I simply need a motion. I was looking for unanimous consent so I wouldn't need a motion, but if I do have an official motion, and I believe I heard one from Mr. Anderson, we could discuss the report.

I don't see anybody else who wishes to speak to this. I'll simply call the question.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chairman, if we're going to move in this direction and Shanghai the rest of the meeting, let's have a recorded vote and see what happens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Very well.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I think it's absolutely ridiculous. We have these witnesses here. We have five minutes. The opposition has five minutes, and you're taking that five minutes away. I think that's an abuse of committee privilege, frankly.